Thesis: Defining our Rights

In recent months, the issue of gun control has leaped into the foreground of political debate. With increasing media coverage of mass shootings, even our Commander-in-Chief has listed gun control as a priority during his second term. With the president's support, politicians, such as Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, have begun to unveil new legislation to ban "assault weapons" in an attempt to curtail the number of shootings. However, these politicians seem to ignore crime statistics and repeatedly fail to mention how far this ban will stretch. In order to properly evaluate the step our country should take regarding gun control, we must first seek answers. What exactly are these "assault weapons"? What about our Second Amendment rights? Although reducing violent crime in the United States is an important issue and politicians' cries to increase gun control for the safety of our citizens may be appealing at first glance, we must look into the facts before we begin to surrender our precious rights outlined in the Constitution by our founding fathers.

Stupidity at its finest.

Another reason why we need to have people who know what they are doing regulating guns, not this guy.

Militia activity as it should be, not how Politicians see it.

In modern political rhetoric, Militias are seen as crazy gun nuts somewhere in Montana secretly plotting the overthrow of our government.  This conception is far from what they used to be. They used to be citizen soldiers, with local leadership that supported stability and action when state and federal governments were either powerless or already engaged. I propose that militias should be regular civilian organizations, assisting the police and national guard when those two cannot perform their functions.  There are many benefits to this practice that could benefit our country.  Local leadership and members would be able to administrate in times of emergency and turmoil.  These would be purely civillian organizations, solely beholden to the people in their area, though regulated (Not controlled) by the government.  They would be trained, both in military fashion as well as in civil service and administration, and have a regime similar to the national guard, without deployment or connection to the government: to successfully uphold order in chaos, as well as residing the power strictly with the people and providing a means of resistance against ell enemies, foreign and domestic.  This could potentially also be the method we use to regulate assault weapons and destructive devices.  The members would be trained, expert, and assuredly mentally competent, ensuring peace and order, as well as giving the people their own responsibility and power.

Thesis: Defining Hope

America is tired of waiting. Where is the progress? Are we going to stand by and wait for another Aurora, another Columbine, another Sandy Hook? Can our government at least begin to address the problem with some form of step in the right direction? Defining an assault rifle will not cure our society of its murderous habits, but the action will provide the American people with a deserved feeling of hope towards a safer United States; progress must me made.